@Cowgirl, I am truly curious why you think that owners must be desperate if they are doing a care lease. I feel like I am missing something that you are basing this opinion on and I truly want to understand why you think this.
3 Likes
It is NOT assumed that there will be a disimprovement in training. There is an expectation that the level of training will be maintained and/or improved at the lesseeâs expense. If the horse is stepping down from a level of training due to health reasons, that is accounted for. But the level to which it is cleared for work should still be maintained to a good quality.
If you are talking about a semi-retirement home, thatâs a different story.
1 Like
Pack mentality. This is how threads go when they turn on you. #beentheredonethat
This is the part i agree with 100%. Would not the owner of the horse feel an all-encompassing responsibility to that horseâs welfare? Especially if that owner brought that horse along through training, into shows, and nowâŠsemi-retiring said horse (because presumably s/he is physically fading)âŠwouldnât that person feel a personal obligation to keeping the older, well-spent horse, in as sound a condition as possible?
yes, for me too.
We are conversing about a third party here. Not BlueDrifter theirself. This whole âdonât like it/leave itâ sort of thing doesnât apply. We are talking about what-iffs/What do you think about this scenario. SoâŠOP has perfect cause to share their opinion. Itâs JUST.AN.OPINION.
I also think itâs unreasonable for someone to choose not to free lease me a nice upper level horse, as well as continue to pay a big chunk of the expenses, but that doesnât make it any more likely it will happen.
5 Likes
Well, for good enough riders this would more likely occur. And if youâre xtra spechal, theyâd actually pay you to ride their upper level horse. âŠshades of grayâŠshades of gray. There is so much variation, and expectations need to be adjustable to circumstances.
An older horse, that needs injectionsâŠor a cushings horse that needs daily meds or bi-weekly injections. I do not feel that is ought to be the obligation of the leasee. I feel this care needs to fall within the realm of horse owner. If the horse in question is stepping down from competition because of age-related issues, and going into a lease with a lesser-rider. There is a balancing equation in thisâŠleasee keeps horse in condition for his/her declining years before full retirement, owner gets to have the horsesâ general expenses paid for plus extra lease fee on top of that because the horse gots-skillz. But the horse still comes-with an ever-declining physicalityâŠand the associated expenses, to me, seems like something the owner would actually want to pick-up.
As an illustration of the nearly infinite variety of lease conditions, the owner may forgo a lease fee (which is the case in the OP) in exchange for veterinary responsibilities-- especially true for absentee owners (e.g. kid is off to college, or owner is out-of-state or out-of-country due to work obligations, etc. etc.). Makes sense because the lessee is closer to the horse on a more frequent basis and should be able to catch issues before they become crises. Additionally, exposing the lessee to some of the care costs (preventative meds, vet bills) may induce the lessee to be more careful about wear and tear-- this is probably more true for higher-impact sports like eventing or jumping than it is for dressage.
Spectrum of lease fee responsibility ranges from: lessee faces no costs at all (stereotypical âbarn ratâ catching rides on an otherwise underutilized horse) to lessee assumes all costs + pays a fee + carries insurance for those major medical risks (but avoids having to pay a presumably hefty purchase price and has access to a nicer horse than they would otherwise).
But the owner paying a person to ride/train their horse⊠thatâs a trainer/owner relationship, not owner/lessee relationship.
12 Likes
No one is disputing anyoneâs right or ability to share their opinion. People are pointing that itâs not an informed opinion, or one based on the reality of a trained third level horse.
13 Likes
I am confused why some people seem to think a horse that requires some maintenance or is stepping down a level some how = a horse with no great teaching value to a rider or a horse that has no sale value so therefor the owner should not be allowed to lease it, they should feel great that someone is willing to ride it for them.
Stepping down or on maintenance does not equal three legged lame on deaths door.
Lots of horses still have a ton to teach a less experienced rider when they are stepping down and their value is far from nothing.
20 Likes
This, EXACTLY.
Read the title of the thread. The poster is asking for typical scenarios. We are giving them to Them, and they are arguing. That is the problem.
10 Likes
Exactly, the thread title asked what was âtypicalâ after all.
2 Likes
I havenât waded through all the responses, but all expenses plus a lease fee for a highly trained horse seems entirely reasonable. The extra cost of the lease fee is offset by the fact that you can walk away from the lease if you want without weeks or months of sales efforts, plus no five- or six figure purchase price (and PPE). It also provides the owner with a bit of an incentive to trust their horse to someone who could very well ruin a valuable animal with poor riding or care).
If you (g) balk at these costs, just wait till you look into buying your own 3rd level horse.
13 Likes
No one said :
But sometimes that is the case.
And sometimes that horse would be considered one deserving of a lease, with a fee and insurance.
Itâs not pack mentality. Itâs how leases work in the horse world.
13 Likes
I disagree. Maintenance is the price you often pay for the privilege to ride and learn from an older, upper-level horse. If you as the leaser are enjoying 100% of the riding privileges, then 100% of the routine maintenance costs should be your responsibility. If you are sharing riding privileges with the owner, then you should be sharing routine costs.
I mean I can tell an owner I want exclusive use of their older upper level horse and therefore Iâm going to be the one adding to the wear and tear on it, which increases its need for maintenance, but Iâm not willing to pay for any of those maintenance costs. And the owner can tell me they are going to pull the shoes and let the horse be a beloved pasture ornament instead,
24 Likes
In every lease Iâve ever seen, the leasorâs liability is limited to at most the maximum duration of the lease. In other words, even if the horse is three-legged lame and needs a year of rehab, even in the most restrictive of leases (on top $$$ showjumpers, mostly) the maximum amount of bills the leasor pays is the term of the lease.
Iâm not sure how that got twisted into all the costs, forever, but thatâs never been the case in any lease Iâve seen. Most have other terms that allow the lease to be ended if the horse is not usable for the intended purpose for some amount of time.
That being said, letâs talk about said hypothetical 3rd level horse. Letâs say I can find one, off breed, older than 15, probably topping out at 3rd, for $25,000.
If I want to own that horse, I pay $25,000. On day 1, I have spent $25,000 plus probably vetting, transport, and maybe a commission in buying. Letâs say I didnât though and all Iâve spent is $25,000.
At the end of a year, I have enjoyed exclusive use of a horse and Iâve spent letâs say $12,000 on board, another $4000 in training, $1000 in routine vet, and $2700 on farriery, in a normal year where nothing wacky happens.
Now Party B decides they would like to lease this horse. They donât think a lease fee is reasonable because they believe that said horse will still be worth $25,000 at the end of the lease even though itâs a year older. Letâs assume thatâs true. So they lease the same horse for a year.
At the end of year 2, Owner has spent $44,700. Leasor has spent $19,700. Both have enjoyed one year of exclusive use.
How does that not compute as value to the leasor?
For that matter, why do people rent houses when they could buy their own?
14 Likes
Well now Iâve made it through all the posts and one thing that makes me laugh is the OPââs repeated assertion that the horse owner isnât shouldering any risk in the lease.
I would suggest they search the forum for posts on leases ending badly to read how many people have posted here about getting leased horses back underweight, with untreated medical issues, new stable vices, fear issues or training regressions that they didnât have before they left control of their owners.
There are plenty of jerks out there who donât see the need to treat something well that doesnât belong to them. Itâs the same reason most sellers donât do trials any more. And who can blame them?
14 Likes
Its so true. Its also part of why Iâd rather let good people I know ride one of my nice horses for free at my farm than lease off property while in vest most of my time in his green sister.
4 Likes
I have a horse right now who was firesold to me for 5 figures less than he is worth because he was sent out on a one week lease/trial to buy at a horse show and came back stopping at jumps and headshy.
This happened in one week. Owners spent six months trying to âfixâ him before they firesold him. Heâs not put a foot wrong in the time Iâve had him, but the owners easily lost $50,000 in that one week.
18 Likes
